Basically, it's the most straightforward and honest contract in modern NFL history. It's a series of team options. Revis will make his $16 million a year until the Bucs feel he isn't worth it anymore.

The people who are bashing Revis for this contract because it lacks guaranteed money are stupid. They are forgetting that the Bucs gave up a #13 overall pick plus a 3rd/4th in 2014 for Revis. What, are they just going to cut him right now? Of course not. At a minimum, this contract is essentially worth at least $16 million guaranteed (assuming Revis does the workout programs) because they obviously wouldn't cut him this year barring some incredible unforseen event. Would the Bucs cut Revis after just one year after that kind of draft pick investment? Probably not, if they keep him for two years, it's up to $32 million. Keep him for 3 years? $48 million.

At some point, the Bucs could approach about a restructure, but what if Revis says no? Do you cut him and lose that investment? That draft pick expenditure is the ace in the hole for Revis.

Revis' money is not only extremely high, but it avoids the backloaded games that obfuscate most NFL contracts actual worth. Compare this contract to Percy Harvin, who got $25.5 million guaranteed money. Let's say for the sake of argument that Seattle and the Bucs void their respective contracts after year 3. Obviously, I'm not saying this would happen for Harvin, I'm just showing how they'd come out money wise:

(I'm using Harvin because his contract is very close to what the league's top CBs were earning prior to today's Revis extension).

If voided after 3 years, how much money would these players walk away with?

Harvin: $36 million total dollars earned.Revis: $48 million.

Two years?

Harvin: $25.5 million.Revis: $32 million.

One year?

Harvin: $25.5 million.Revis: $16 million.

It's near absurd to suggest that the Bucs would release or risk release by approaching Revis for restructure after just one season. And after 2 seasons, Revis' take home pay easily beats Harvin. By year 3, it blows Harvin out of the water. Sure, Revis probably won't see every dime of that $96 million. But he'll see a lot more money than he would on a the kind of high guaranteed money deal that pundits would have applauded. Great move by Revis, and terrible negotiating by Mark Dominik. This contract was more than an ego-stroke. It's a smart deal for Revis given the leverage he has with sunk cost in draft collateral.

Damn, and I thought Harvin's deal was fairly "even over time". If you want a comparison against a "bad for the team's cap" player contract, look at Megatron's. Detroit is going to be broke for paying other players in 2015/2016.

This is interesting, though. You think we'll see more of this, Kearly, or is it an anomaly?

I don't buy that the Bucs wouldn't cut him after 1 year if it wasn't working out.

If Revis isn't playing up to his contract and TB wants to cut its losses, they'll do it, investment cost or not. The NFL is unlike any other league in this way. If it's really that bad they'll cut their losses at save themselves $16M.

They could give him the benefit of the doubt for next season because he's coming off injury. If he doesn't produce in 2014? Bye.

Only way I see this going more than 2 years is if he's still at the same Derrell Revis level. The Bucs won't continue to sink money into an investment that they can easily rid themselves of at no extra cost.

cesame wrote:I don't buy that the Bucs wouldn't cut him after 1 year if it wasn't working out.

If you pay a 1st + 3rd/4th for Revis and you get one year of his services (at $16 million) before cutting bait, that's a fiasco trade. I have a hard time seeing most GMs surviving that unless their team is doing amazing.

RolandDeschain wrote:Damn, and I thought Harvin's deal was fairly "even over time". If you want a comparison against a "bad for the team's cap" player contract, look at Megatron's. Detroit is going to be broke for paying other players in 2015/2016.

This is interesting, though. You think we'll see more of this, Kearly, or is it an anomaly?

I think it was an anomaly. The draft-picks given up makes a non-guaranteed contract a totally different beast.

Harvin's deal actually is decently even. His base salary in 2013 is very low but that's because he got a $12 million signing bonus this year. After this year his average cap hit ranges from $11 to $13 million.

It's an unusual contract, without a doubt. But, under the new CBA, the market's been acting very unusual.

Giving up picks or not, the trend seems to be teams having more power in negotiations (outside QB's). I think contracts and the trends have to head this direction. As I said in the other thread, the NFLPA got took at the negotiating table, again, so until its renegotiated there will be ALOT of head-scratcher deals like this.

I'm not saying anyone could've predicted a contract as odd as Revis's deal. But, the market's heading into a direction unseen in NFL FA history. It bodes VERY well for teams which set-up player friendly atmospheres. Like, Seattle.

pehawk wrote:It's an unusual contract, without a doubt. But, under the new CBA, the market's been acting very unusual.

Giving up picks or not, the trend seems to be teams having more power in negotiations (outside QB's). I think contracts and the trends have to head this direction. As I said in the other thread, the NFLPA got took at the negotiating table, again, so until its renegotiated there will be ALOT of head-scratcher deals like this.

I'm not saying anyone could've predicted a contract as odd as Revis's deal. But, the market's heading into a direction unseen in NFL FA history. It bodes VERY well for teams which set-up player friendly atmospheres. Like, Seattle.

IMO, this deal happened for a few reasons and won't likely be repeated often.

#1: One of the main purposes of guaranteed money is to act as a disincentive factor which adds to job security. For example, Red Bryant was terrible last season, and he has an injury that is likely to be a recurring problem. However, if Seattle released him it would actually cost them money in the short term. His 2013 cap hit would actually go up by $4 million if they released him today. That's a lot of incentive to just hold on to Bryant an extra year and see how he does. That cap hit consequence is because of the guaranteed money.

Revis may not have guaranteed money to scare away thoughts of a restructure, but if/when the Bucs decide he's not worth the money anymore, they aren't getting that 1st + 3rd pick back. How long do they need to keep Revis for that trade to not look terrible? I'd say at least 3 years.

#2: Revis has an ego. This was pretty clear by his childish and (IMO) unprovoked reaction to Richard Sherman getting the spotlight. Revis wanted $16 million a year, and he got it. It's a symbolic thing for him. And normally, it would be a pretty dumb contract. But in this case, I think it's actually a genius contract for Revis because the Bucs are very unlikely to touch that contract for years.

#3: Most players won't sign contracts that practically beg to be restructured. I think a lot of players worry about getting injured and losing millions of dollars, too. In the case of Revis, he probably feels safe because the draft pick investment serves as his disincentive factor.

Kearly, I think the contract works fairly for TB as well. Revis gets a big wage each year that he is "still Revis" - the guy is betting on his own ability, and you have to respect him for that.

From TB's point of view you getva year to year rental, and because there is no signing bonus there is no possibility of dead money. The draft picks are irrelevant from that point of view if you do wish to cut him - they are just the cost of doing business.

Agreed that this type of contract, specifically, will never be repeated...maybe ever. But, there's no doubt in my mind the FA landscape changed with this new CBA. Players are already muttering "buyers remorse" on the new CBA deal. Revis's side cleverly leveraged a divorce by the Bucs costly, but the point is they still have an out.

I wonder which side first broached the idea of no guaranteed money? If the Bucs wanted Revis as badly as they claim it makes you wonder if they would risk tainting the water by first floating the idea. Maybe they wanted to offer guaranteed money but at a lower base? Interesting to know how they got to the bottom line structure and what the trade-offs were?

I'm with Kip on this one. Fantastic deal for Revis, as long as he's able to put out at a high level. And although it's high cost, it's not a total fiasco for the team unless Revis craps the bed the first or second year.

World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.Les Norton - gone but never forgotten. Rest in blue and green peace, my friend.

I highly doubt that he is the player that he was athletically. He never had elite speed, his whole game was predicated on out smarting the other guy/team, which I think he will still be able to do. What I'd be worried about would be his jumping, agility and durability. He will probably play like 33yr old vet than a player who is 27 which is not a complete bust situation, but he is way, WAY overpaid. I just would be horrified if he was a $16 million a year guy on our team, good luck to the Bucs.

I posted this in the main forum on the Kam extension thread, but thought I'd post it here for anyone who is interested. Yahoo sports just did a breakdown of the Revis and Chancellor contracts if anyone wants to take a look at the numbers here is the link: